Gujarat Court February 2001 Judgments
Navjivan Roller Flour and Pulse Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1467
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-M/s Navjivan Roller Flour & Pulse Mills Ltd. has challenged the order dated 22-10-1990 passed by the State Government in the Food & Civil Supplies Department under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for confiscating 50% of the seized foodgrains i.e., 50% of Rs.1,21,837/-.2. The petitioner is running a flour mill and possesses licences as a producer and wholesale dealer in respect of various foodgrains. The controversy in the present petition is only about certain quantities of wheat. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should nor be taken against the petitioner and the seized stocks should not be confiscated on account of the following irregularities :-(i) Although the petitioner was holding licence as a wholesale dealer (No. 213 of 1981), the petitioner did not maintain any sto...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Bhatia and ors. Vs. M.K. Gajera
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3433; (2001)2GLR1644
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners are the original opponents, against whom the respondent herein has filed a contempt application, being Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 1997, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gondal. The respondent herein was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1988. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent for necessary declaration in the matter of entitlement of promotion and other consequential benefits on the post of D.H.O., Class I, We are not concerned with the merits of the aforesaid proceedings in this C.R.A.2. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court and the said decree was confirmed in appeal by the appellate Court. Thereafter, the said contempt application was filed by the present respondent on the ground that the opponents of that application have committed contempt by not giving benefit to the plaintiff which is flowing from the decree of the trial Court. On the aforesaid application...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswarup Purandas Modi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3246
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 12-9-2000 of District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under which he was ordered to be detained in exercise of powers under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Act).2. Manifold contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging this order of the detaining authority, but as this petition deserves acceptance on the ground that there is long delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government, it is not necessary as well as advisable to consume unnecessarily valuable judicial time of this Court giving decision on all contentions.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that wife of the petitioner made representation against the detention of the petitioner to the Central Government i.e. it was addressed to the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Khasia Gabha Bhupat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3086
C.K. Buch, J.1. The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at the conclusion of the trial of Sessions Case No. 39 of 1985. The respondents are original accused charge-sheeted and tried by the Sessions Judge of the offences punishable under Sees. 302, 303 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we have referred the respondents as 'accused' and the witness examined by the prosecution as 'P.Ws'.3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27-10-1984 at about 8-00 p.m. when deceased Shivubhai Bhupafbhai was passing through the shop of P.W. Jayantibhai located near a chowk, he dashed with P.W. Dipubhai Merubhai. This dashing of P.W. Dipu Meru and deceased Shivu Meru had resulted into a hot exchange of words and a scuffle. At that time, the accused came running to the spot of incident with deadly weapons like spear, axe and knife and gav...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Chhotabhai D. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3462
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioners nos. 1 to 4 herein claim to be the Professors in various subjects in Sahu S.P. Jain Arts and Commerce College, Dhrangadhra, the petitioners Nos.5 to 9 claim to be Professors working in Shree Somnath College Veraval and petitioners Nos.10 and 11 claim to be Professors in Arts and Commerce College, Jamjodhpur and P.D. Malaviya Graduate Teachers' College, Rajkot respectively. A chart Annexure-A has been enclosed with the petition to give details about the dates of their appointments as Lecturers, Professors and dates of recognition/renewal as P.G. Teacher and the names of the colleges in which they are working.2. Regarding the petitioner No.1, it has been stated that, he was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics at Sahu S.P. Jain Arts and Commerce College, by order dated 7.5.1967 with effect from 15.6.1967 and by order dated 25.6.1972 he was promoted as Professor with effect from 14.6.1972 subject to the approval of the Saurashtra University and the Saurasht...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Oxygen Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2006]143STC640(Guj)
ORDERJ.M. Panchal, J.1. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the resolution dated April 29, 2000 seeking discontinuation of sales tax based incentives provided under the Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000 and prescription of eligibility conditions for treating industrial units as pipeline cases to enable the units to have benefits of existing commitments in respect of incentives offered by Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000, is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, violative of principles of law, equity and justice and amounting to breach of principles of promissory estoppel. The petitioner has further prayed that retrospective implementation of the resolution dated April 29, 2000 be declared as void.2. With a view to accelerating development of the backward areas of the State and creating large scale employment opportunities,...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Bachubhai Sakalchand Vs. Mariyambibi Noormohmad and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2019
D.P. Buch, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the applicant above named under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred as Act for short) against the judgment and decree dated 19th August, 1996 recorded by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1985, dismissing the said appeal of the present applicant substantially and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1996 recorded by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 4150 of 1978 under which, the learned Judge dismissed the said suit of the present applicant-original plaintiff before the trial Court for possession of therented property which is a shop situated in the City of Ahmedabad on Astodia Road, Nr. Bado Pole, Ahmedabad, which is more particularly described in para 1 of the plaint.2. The applicant above named instituted the above suit before the S...
Tag this Judgment!Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Polysteels Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3377
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Special Civil Suit No. 106 of 1975 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, somewhere on 15.11.1975. In that suit the plaintiff prayed that M/s. Polysteels (India) Limited, defendant No. 1 hand over possession to the plaintiffs of the materials and components as detailed in annexure-A to the plaint.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-2.1 The plaintiffs are company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 carrying on business, inter alia, as manufacturers and sellers of furnace and other eingineering goods. M/s. Polysteels (India) Limited, defendant No. 1, are company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business, inter alia, as mild and special steel manufacturers. Plaintiffs averred in the suit that a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants as contained in the letter dated 15-11-1973 Ex. 33 addressed by the plaintiffs to the defendant and agreed to by the defendant through their Managing Dir...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muna Maya Basant W/O Sher Bahadur Bas ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC589; 2001ACJ940; AIR2001Guj304; (2001)1GLR915
H.R. Shelat, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhuj awarding compensation as per structured formula under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'the Act').2. In these two appeals, common questions of law and facts are raised. With a view to avoid waste of time, hardships to the parties, and conflicting judgments, we have preferred to hear the appeals together and dispose the same of by a common judgment. Accordingly, the appeals are heard and by this common judgment all the three appeals shall stand disposed of.3. Vir Bahadur, the son of Sher Bahadur and opponent No.1, was going from Kandla to Indore driving the tanker No. GJ-12-T-7723. Tek Bahadur was the cleaner on the tanker. Vir Bahadur was driving the tanker cautiously remaining on the left side of the road and at the moderate speed. On 15th July, 1996 at 1.30 p.m. he reached Ghatpir on Dahod-Godhra road, He was negotiating the curve on the by...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Yakub Ishaq Hari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR114
S.K. Keshote, J.1. All these three matters are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order for the reason that the facts as well as the grounds of challenge to the order of the Sessions Judge, Vadodara made in three criminal appeals which had arisen from the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chhota-Udepur of confiscation of vehicle in connection with the forest offence by the respondents are the same and the orders of the Sessions Judge are also stereotype.2. Leading arguments have been raised by Shri D. M. Thakkar for the respondents with reference to the Special Criminal Application No. 469 of 1997 and as such the facts and grounds of challenge to the order of the Sessions Judge, Vadodara are taken up from this petition. The respondent claims himself to be the owner of the truck No. GJ-7T 7226. This truck was intercepted on 2-7-1996 on Kesarpur-Kashipura Road by the Forest Officers and on inquiry it was found to be transporting the contraband fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »